Trump Showed Lack Of Dignity And No Self-Esteem At This Morning's National Prayer Breakfast

Submitted by: holygod 1 month ago News & Politics


At this morning's National Prayer Breakfast, a traditionally serious and somewhat somber event, our president spoke to a room full of lawmakers, foreign dignitaries, and religious leaders. He asked them to pray for the displaced refugees across the world. 

Just kidding, at about the 2:50 mark of the video up above, he took the opportunity to brag about his former show's television ratings ("Celebrity Apprentice" -- a scripted reality show he's still a producer on), slam its current show's ratings, and ask everyone to pray for Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings to improve.

Are you guys that voted for him getting at least a LITTLE embarrassed yet?

This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger's responded to Trump's ratings jab.


There are 77 comments:
Male 1,133
I did and so did enough of the American people to get him elected.  
0
Reply
9
Click Here .. & Open
https://tinyurl.com/lxpcofr
https://tinyurl.com/j6h9juj
-1
Reply
Male 2,401
Who here actually voted for Trump?  I sure as hell didn't.  
1
Reply
Male 54
dromed  I voted for a third party, but this is the election by county.  Pretty clearly shows why the electoral college is more important than the popular vote.

 
0
Reply
Male 4,373
starzokc The electoral map does not show the true representation of the votes or the voters. To do that you need to use a cartogram which displays the votes by number of people. And to get an even greater representation you need to calculate deeper, using the percentage of votes for each electoral college, not just red and blue. Using that criteria the cartogram map shows two very important things. 1) That the US is not even close to being as divided as the media is making everyone believe. 2) Our country has a pretty impressive dong.
2
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc Let me try to explain another way. 

The population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, and Idaho is roughly 12,000,000 people. That is 3.7% of the U.S. Population. 

Those same states get 41 electoral votes. Texas, which has fewer electoral votes at 38, has a population of 27 million.

You get it? The 12M people in those states have more of a say as to who is president than the 27M people in Texas.

You can like the electoral college because it "is the way it has always been", you can like it because it tends to elect your preference even if they lose the popular vote, you can like it because it makes the election more exciting to watch on TV. But don't try to use math. You'll lose every time and badly.

With the electoral college you can become president with less than 22% of the popular vote.

2
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc Are you saying that if you took a map of Austailia, the Outback should have more of a say in an election then Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Perth? I mean it takes up way more space on the map right? Those 4 cities are 55+% of the entire countries population and only <1% of the land area.
1
Reply
Male 54
holygod Australia and the U.S. are not a fair comparison.   The U.S. has a much more evenly dispersed population than Australia has, especially in the eastern half of the country.
1
Reply
Male 980
starzokc holygod it's an interesting point. As an Aussie clarify our methodology (excleding the senate, that's complicated) ...we don't have a president, we have a prime minister...when we vote, we vote for who we wish to be our local member of parliament (formally, our member of the House of Representitives). This is basically the same as your congress. Now, each person vying for election runs in their electorate, which, as far as I'm aware is the same as, or similar to, your congressional districts. Whichever political party that has the majority of members elected to the HoR forms government. The parliamenary leader of the party in question becomes the PM. However, the leader of the party is not chosen by the people, but by the party. So, the elected members of the HR of the party in power can vote on a new leader, who would, if it passed, become the new PM. This happened not long ago, when Abbott was overturned as LNP leader, in favour of Turnbull. So Abbott was ousted as PM, and Turnbull became PM. Both from the same party, no change of government, just a different leader...

In relation to the land mass vs population. This is something that the last US ambasoder to Australia commented on just before his tenure was up, and, iirc, I commented on one of the political threads on here at the time. He mentioned that it would be wise for the US to adopt a system comparable to Au in terms of electoral boundaries. In AU, we have the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission). This is part of the govenment beurocracy, but is entirely independant of the administration, ande apolitical. They work within their charter, and within the law and constitution, to ensure various points of law are adhered to for fair elections, and part of their responsibilities are electoral boundaries. The different elections are based on population, not land mass, in order to ensure equal representation for all Australians. One role of the AEC is to monitor population variations, and adjust the electoral boundaries as a result; either making an electorate bigger or smaller, merging electorates into a new electorate, or creatin new electorates based on population shifts. 

The point is that each elected member of the house of representitives has a constituancey of similar size to the next. Which is why urban electorates may only be a few sqare miles in area, wheras rural or outback electorates may be hundreds, if not thousands, of sqare miles in size.

Not saying this is how you guys should do it, it's not my place...but as the Au system was brought up in discussion, I thought I'd clarify our methodology.


4
Reply
Male 1,762
buttersrules Thanks, Butters. That's really helpful. I think we could learn a lot from the Australians. I was speaking with a friend yesterday whose brother lives in Australia. She told me she was recently joking with family members about who could move where, hypothetically, and she said he responded, "There is no way, ever, I'd leave Australia to return to the States." He loves it there.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
squrlz4ever It's one of the few places I'd consider living outside the U.S.
1
Reply
Male 1,762
holygod POWER TO THE KANGAROOS! 
1
Reply
Male 6,187
starzokc People > Land sorry bucko.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc Because land is more important than people? People live in the blue areas. Cows live in the red areas. Why would the size of counties where very few people live be a better indicator than smaller counties where many people do live as to what the "will of the people" is?
1
Reply
Male 54
holygod Not just cows live in those red areas.  The electoral college makes sure that everyone's votes are equal.  It insures that the guy living in a shack in Kentucky and the guy living in a high rise in Manhattan's votes count for the same.  If it went by the popular vote the election would be determined by a handful of highly populated cities, which is hardly fair to the people who live in the rural parts of the country.
1
Reply
Male 429
starzokc No, it does not make sure everyone's vote is equal.  It makes some peoples votes count 2 times or more than others.  It;s been said that a president could win with only 22% of the popular vote.  So that 22% of people's votes counts over twice as much as everyone else's.  How is that equal?

I live in TX, we get hosed.  We have a population of 27 Million people, yet out vote counts for less.  In addition to that, something we see here all the time and I am sure it happens in other areas too, is constant re-drawing of the district lines.  The Republicans here do that to make sure that each district has more Red than Blue votes, resulting in things like the map up above.  If they moved the district lines in a different way, you'd see way more Blue in TX, especially around Austin.

So not only do our votes here count less than other people, they are able to play with the numbers in other ways, because of the electoral college.  It's a shit system, really.
2
Reply
228
waldo863 And the people in DC aren't represented at all in the EC system, despite having more population than a couple of states (vermont and wyoming, and not far behind alaska and the dakotas)
0
Reply
Male 7,960
barry9a Actually, they are. D.C. gets 3 electoral votes.
1
Reply
228
holygod ah, sorry. it's the senate they have no representation in, not the presidential election.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
barry9a Yep. They do get a rep but she can't vote on the house floor.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc I was going to tell you how epically EPICALLY factually incorrect you are, but squrlz4ever did that already. If you want the guy in Kentucky and the guy in Manhattan to count the same then you do the popular vote. Then both their votes count the EXACT SAME. The electoral college does the opposite of that.
1
Reply
Male 1,762
starzokc "The electoral college makes sure that everyone's votes are equal.  It insures that the guy living in a shack in Kentucky and the guy living in a high rise in Manhattan's votes count for the same."

You simply could not be more wrong. The Electoral College ensures that some citizens' votes are far more important than others. For example, the vote of one person in Wyoming is worth the votes of four Californians.

This video, which has already been posted on IAB, does a good job of explaining the problems with the Electoral College. (Several of us IAB'ers, by the way, have already checked the facts and math in the video and found them to be accurate.)
2
Reply
Male 54
I understand how the electoral college works and i can understand simple math.  I didn't think my statement would be taken quite so literally.  The people that live in densely populated cities have and will in the foreseeable future consistently vote in the left leaning political spectrum.  The people that don't live in those cities vote the opposite.  Since the popular vote was very close this election that map shows that there is a much wider and even distribution of people that voted for Trump then the small pockets of the county that voted for Clinton.  If the big cities are the only representation of an election then the people outside of those cities don't get represented at all.  Therefore even though there may have been more people who voted for Clinton overall Trump had much more widespread  support throughout the county.
-2
Reply
Male 429
starzokc That map shows no such thing.  That map shows that in those areas Red got at least 51% of the vote.  What about the other 49%?  They just get ignored?

Look at a state like Michigan, where neither side actually had over 50%, the difference between the sides was a fraction of a %.  Yet Red got ALL the votes?  Where's the blue on the map representing nearly the SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE?
2
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc I'm really confused by your statements. "the people outside of those cities don't get represented at all" Ummmm. Yes they do. Their vote counts for one vote. The EXACT SAME REPRESENTATION as someone who lives in a city, that ALSO gets one vote. 

Did you watch the video? You might want to watch it. It badly fucks up your argument. For example, the 100 biggest cities in the country are less than 20% of the population. So......? 
2
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc "I understand how the electoral college works and i can understand simple math" Sorry, You don't understand one of those things. That is the only conclusion I can draw from your statement that: "The electoral college makes sure that everyone's votes are equal". It isn't a matter of taking something literally, it is the fact that it does THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
2
Reply
Male 1,762
starzokc It's not a matter of taking your statement "quite so literally." You were flat-out wrong and, for whatever reason, now seem to be choking on the words "I stand corrected."

Also, the county map you're using to base your opinion on is a distortion. Those red counties in the middle of the country? Not everyone in them voted for Trump. A representation of the county votes that's more reflective of reality is shown below. What the map illustrates is that this notion that Clinton support existed only on the two coasts is a fiction. There are swaths of Clinton support across the nation.



But even this map (above) is a distortion as it's illustrating acreage and not population. If you adjust the map further to reflect people, and not acres, you get the map below.



One merit of this population-weighted map is that it makes it easier to see how Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million people, something completely hidden by your first county-acres-all-or-nothing map.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
squrlz4ever It was the fictional Illegals and mythical voting dead that won Clinton the popular vote
1
Reply
Male 1,762
thezigrat ~gasps~ OMG, you're right. I forgot all about the millions and millions of invisible boogie men that were crowding into those voting booths. We definitely need to spend 200 or 300 million dollars looking for them. BRING THE INVISIBLE BOOGIE MEN TO JUSTICE!
1
Reply
Male 37,042
squrlz4ever If you paint it all white? It looks completely different too! 
What a meaningless, bullshit map the second one is, literally looks like 'spin art' and is just as informative.

The Electoral College is there FOR THIS VERY REASON to prevent a few large States from over-whelming many smaller ones. IT DID ITS JOB so quit BITCHING AND MOANING ok?
You don't like it? Change it! But retroactive crybaby tactics just make you Dems look like sore losers, which you are.
-3
Reply
Male 1,762
5cats Here, 5cats, I've made a new map, just for you. It shows your typical thought process when making a comment on IAB.

The red areas represent your brain when it's thinking "I am fucking brilliant!" and the blue areas are where you're ignoring reality when it's different from your preconceptions. And the black? Well, that's where you're getting ready to type words in full caps, like "SPECIAL LIBTARD SNOWFLAKES."

1
Reply
Male 7,960
squrlz4ever The green areas are his intelligence.
4
Reply
Male 1,762
holygod But... but... but I doan see any green areas. ~scratches head~
1
Reply
Male 4,395
squrlz4ever Looks like something I ate and lost
1
Reply
Male 54
I'm not saying that Clinton didn't get more votes, I'm saying that she was not represented evenly throughout the country.  The first map you put up still has a lot more red and purple in it than blue.  I apologize if my original statement was not not clearly stated but I am not going to say I stand corrected.  I still believe peoples votes are for more equally represented in an electoral college system than they are with a popular vote.  If we were in a country that didn't have states, counties and representatives for them, then I might have a different opinion.
1
Reply
Male 429
starzokc There you go again trying to say that it makes peoples votes more equal.

What could possibly be more equal than each persons vote counting THE SAME or as should be said EQUALLY.

As soon as you do anything to change each persons vote being exactly equal to everyone else's vote you have made peoples votes less equal, not more, because in a popular vote, all peoples votes already are equal.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc "she was not represented evenly throughout the country" Well now we get to talk about the winner-take-all issue. 

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas appear to be solid red on your map, correct? 29% of those in Oklahoma voted for her. 36% of those in Kansas voted for her. 34% of those in Nebraska voted for her. 34% of those in Arkansas voted for her.

There are 3,142 counties in the united states. That means in an election you could be statistically tied in the popular vote, but with one candidate getting 50%+1 in each county. That would result in your map being ENTIRELY ONE COLOR while the candidate only won by 3,142 votes.

You would look at that map and say "the other candidate wasn't represented at all".
1
Reply
Male 54
holygod What you are talking about would almost be a statistical  impossibility.  If a state is a solid color because they voted 71-29 (above 50% in every county) I think that's a good representation that the people didn't want a particular candidate.  And to be fair in a popular vote it is always a winner take all scenario.  If Trump had nationally won by getting five more votes than Clinton do you think that would be somehow more fair and more fairly represent how the whole country voted?  If we want to entertain an impossible hypothetical, if everyone from the 10 highest populated states that is of voting age voted for a particular candidate and the other 40 states voted for the other guy, those ten states would determine  the election.  Remember we are a republic, not a democracy. 
1
Reply
Male 429
starzokc   That's not true at all either.  Due to third parties, there are a few instances where neither side got over 50%.  In a couple, they were both under 50% and withing 1% of each other.  The fact that you think that is a "statistical impossibility" shows your knowledge level on this is fuck all.
2
Reply
Male 54
" That means in an election you could be statistically tied in the popular vote, but with one candidate getting 50%+1 in each county. That would result in your map being ENTIRELY ONE COLOR while the candidate only won by 3,142 votes. "

I'm no "expert" like you smart guys but i don't think that has ever happened or will ever happen.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
starzokc "those ten states would determine the election" NO. No. No. No. The STATES didn't determine ANYTHING. The people in the states did. Who cares where those people live? Are you telling me that if 300 million people lived in California, Texas, and New York and the other 20 million lived in the other 47 states, that those 47 states should have more of a say than the other 3?
1
Reply
Male 1,762
holygod I sympathetically banged my head on the desk with each of your no's, Holygod. Just thought you'd want to know.

Seldom are threads this amusing. This bodes well for IAB's future. Good job, Fancylad.
1
Reply
Male 1,762
starzokc You say Clinton was not represented evenly throughout the county. Well, neither was Trump. And as far as "the first map you put up still has a lot more red and purple in it than blue" goes, the purple is a mix of Clinton and Trump voters. One could just as easily observe that the map has a lot more blue and purple in it than red.

I can't understand how you can make the argument that "People's votes are far more equally represented in an Electoral College system than they are with a popular vote." That's just counter to fact. Holygod and I are both encouraging you to watch that video because it does a good job of explaining faults of the Electoral College, something you still don't seem to be grasping.

Lastly, let's look at the current state of affairs from another perspective. You are arguing that some people in cities should not be able to dictate their presidential choices to the rest of the nation. There are a number of problems with that statement, as the video makes clear, but let's go with it: That is your position here, right?

I'd ask this question instead: Why should a minority of people living in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota have far more say in elections than people in California and New York--particularly when the people of California and New York provide much more of the money to fund the government than the people in the first group of states? Why should people who pay far less into the government have more say than others in who's president?

Understand that I'm not advocating this view, I'm just asking the question. It seems every bit as fair a question to ask as your question, viz: Why should people in the cities tell the rest of the nation who their president should be?

Frankly, I think any argument on whose votes should count more based on taxes paid, or education, or city vs. country, or acreage is bad.

My answer to all of this--my answer to both your original assumption and my inversion of it--is the same: One Person, One Vote. That is how you make people's votes equal--something you, yourself, seem to be in favor of.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
squrlz4ever Making someone's vote count more because they live on a farm instead of a city is like making their vote count more because they are Asian instead of Hispanic, or straight instead of gay. I mean shouldn't we make gay people's vote count more? To paraphrase starzokc, If the heterosexuals are the only representation of an election then the homosexuals don't get represented at all. 
1
Reply
Male 1,762
holygod Agreed. Protecting the small states is built into the design of the Senate. It's covered. When it comes to elections? Either you go with the founding fathers' original intent and have a select body of highly-intelligent, well-traveled individuals choose who will be president with no regard to political parties OR one person, one vote.

Option A isn't happening because its counter to modern political theory, which has moved toward democracy and away from paternalism. So we're left with Option B.
1
Reply
Male 6,187
starzokc That's what the House of Representatives are for.  Of which isn't very representational as there should be far more seats for Califnornia, new york etc.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
dromed Well, almost half the voting country did.
1
Reply
Male 1,762
holygod By the way, yesterday 5cats stormed through this thread and in a monumental snit, downvoted every one of your and my posts. He came online, fired off a furious, profanity-laden comment to me in another thread, and then two minutes later, I noticed every one of our comments here was suddenly -1. LOL.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

1
Reply
Male 4,395
squrlz4ever By the way he did the same thing to all my posts including my Jehovah joke
1
Reply
Male 4,395
squrlz4ever I up voted 5's -1 out of respect
1
Reply
Male 3,153
dromed I know, the bubble bunch think if you didn't vote for Clinton or you  support your POTUS or anything he does or says you had to have voted for him. It's the butthurt syndrome, they can't think straight through all that pain their party and the media inflicted on them with their fake polls and coverage and outright lies that had them giddy about the prospect of a giant Clinton landslide (ooh Madam President, how glorious that sounds!). They are having a really tough time with it especially the whiner that posted this article.

1
Reply
Male 7,960
trimble BTW, I didn't search this out to slam him. I came across it and was genuinely shocked. I also thought it was one of those stories that a lot of people wouldn't normally see. I haven't posted a single thing about him since he got elected. So give me a break.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
trimble I didn't much care for Clinton. I was a huge Sanders fan and I probably would have voted for Kasich over Clinton. However it was blatantly apparent to me that Trump would be a fucking embarrassment. Forgive me if I didn't want that for my country.

You act like I'm complaining about something of no consequence like who won American Idol or a basketball game. Respect in America matters to me. Bigotry in America matters to me. Our relations with other countries matters to me. Whether we go to war matters to me. Our economy matters to me. Why doesn't it matter to you? Or do you think he is doing / will do a good job?

I can't remember you once calling 5Cats out as a "whiner" for posts about Obama holding a coffee cup. Despite your constant insistent that you are an "independent" you sure is shit side with one side on every argument or issue.
2
Reply
Male 6,187
holygod Bingo.
1
Reply
Male 3,153
Yeah Trump can't move past something. Pot. Kettle. Black.
2
Reply
Male 37,042
trimble Hillary got more votes! The Russians hacked the election ballot boxes! Fire cannot melt steel!

Change the rules after the game is over = liberal-left's cry every time they lose.

-2
Reply
228
5cats dude, you're famous for "crying after you lost" all through Obama's tenure. 
1
Reply
Male 37,042
barry9a What the actual fuck are you blathering about?
I addressed specific issues the Obama Administration did poorly. I never once cried "the Russians hacked the election to make the negro win!" or claimed "Obama is not MY president" and you know it.
So... you put words in my mouth and think you're a big man for refuting them? How sad for you...
-4
Reply
Male 7,960
5cats Yes. "I addressed specific issues the Obama Administration did poorly". LOL. Like saluting with a coffee cup in his hand, not wearing a jacket in the oval office, golfing, not having god in his christmas card, you know, ISSUES.
3
Reply
Male 1,762
barry9a Truer words never typed.
1
Reply
Male 7,960
5cats For the record, and I've said it before, I'd be bitching about the electoral college if Trump won the popular vote and lost the election. I'd be HAPPY, but I'd still be honest about how blatantly stupid of a system it is.

I'm guessing you would be pissing and moaning non-stop if the situations were reversed for Gore / Bush and Clinton / Trump.
2
Reply
Male 1,133
Boy are you reaching  Trump was praising his man Mark Burnett not him self, and the dig at Arnold sounded more like a good natured joke. Any thing you can find to make him look bad just get over it let him get on with the job.
1
Reply
Male 4,395
casaledana Even if he was (which is not true) Bringing up ratings and insulting a former Governor has no place in a prayer service, it is highly dissrespetful.
-1
Reply
Male 7,960
casaledana No, sorry. Mark Burnett is still the producer of the Apprentice so pointing out how much better the ratings were when Trump was on it then they are now has nothing to do with praising Burnett and everything to do with praising himself.

"Make him look bad"? You mean like posting unedited video of him speaking? He makes himself look bad enough, there's no need to "make" anything.

For 8 years on this site I dealt with pissing and moaning about the president chewing gum, golfing, saluting with a coffee cup in his hand, not wearing a jacket in the oval office, having Jay Z to the white house, fist bumping, vacationing in his home state, etc, etc, etc. Never once do I remember you saying "get over it let him get on with the job" 

If you don't think turnabout is fair play go right on ahead and fuck yourself. You numb-nuts elected a national embarrassment as the leader of the free world. You're going to get what's coming to you.
1
Reply
Male 1,133
holygod  Your just mad that your Obama with his streaming line of holywood types to fist bummp with was still a bad president that set race relations, foreign policy, failed to get the economy booming back. I have no problem with taking vacations and etc just to many to expensive and to frequently, really not wearing a coat in the oval office, fist bumping you, realy think I had any thing to say about that your very mistaken. My complaints about that president came after 6,7 years of failed policy  and apparent disrespect to the people of the U.S.A. And lets not forget to other country's he gave the Queen of England a computer disk with music on it or some such thing. I think your perception should be looked at you shore cant understand simple English and praise which was what he was doing for Burnett, it was obvious that he was ribbing The Arnold about his ratings regardless of the producer.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
holygod You forgot  the days of accusations that President Obama got from Fox accusing him of being anti American because he did not wear a flag pin once or the whole Birth Certificate schiest led by the Lump himself.
-1
Reply
Male 4,395
thezigrat The Lump still has not produced a indisputable birth certificate proving that his father is not an ape
-1
Reply
Male 1,542
holygod spot on
0
Reply
Male 264
1
Reply
Male 4,395
mentott510 but I only said this meal was good enough for Jehovah...
-1
Reply
Male 4,395
Arnold had a great come back for Trump's insult. He said why not switch jobs that way the Trump could get his ratings back and the nation can rest more easily
-1
Reply
Male 4,395
Ratings and popularity are more important to the Lump than good taste or respect for others
-1
Reply
Male 278
Trump IS comedy...Just like Andy Kaufman.....
0
Reply
Male 4,395
zeegrr Yep neither were funny when they reached the top of their fame.
-1
Reply
Male 6,187
Thanks God for our wonderful President Drumpf.
1
Reply